x86 OS X Kernel Becomming Closed-Source?

Discussion in 'MacRumors News Discussion (archive)' started by MacBytes, May 17, 2006.

  1. macrumors bot

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2003
    #1

    [​IMG]

    Category: Apple Software
    Link: Apple closes darwin - No longer open source.
    Description:: Apple is closing the Mac OS X kernel, Darwin, so that the source code is no longer accessible to developers. The reason stated are the numerous hacker attacks to the Mac OS X system.

    Posted on MacBytes.com
    Approved by Mudbug
     
  2. macrumors G4

    Mord

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2003
    Location:
    Old York
    #2
    this needs to be taken with a grain of salt, a pretty massive one, this just means that apple is adding closed sections to the kernel to stop OSx86 hacks.

    darwin will continue open source, however the version used in OS X will be modified.
     
  3. macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2005
    #3
    If Apple are to release source just for Server, I wouldn't be suprised if it'll've been modified to the point where it doesn't work with Client, thus letting those who want suped up kernels do as they wish without the same level fear of piracy
     
  4. macrumors bot

    MacRumors

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2001
    #4
    x86 OS X Kernel Becomming Closed-Source?

    [​IMG]

    According to an opinion piece by Tom Yager at Infoworld, Apple has closed the source of the Intel version of the Mac OS X kernel (called XNU) due to piracy concerns. While the rest of the underlying operating system of OS X (called Darwin) is still open-source, closing the kernel means less capability for pirates to hack OS X to run on non-Apple hardware, but also limits developers and power-users' ability to tweak their systems.

    Apple's Open-Darwin mailing list has an ongoing discussion in which some users point out that Apple has actually not released the XNU source for Intel since 10.4.3 or perhaps earlier. Therefore, it appears as though the facts of the article are not new, but rather are just now gaining press attention.

    Also has not officially commented on the future of XNU's source availability, and it appears most conclusions as to why the source has not been released is based on speculation rather than inside knowledge.
     
  5. macrumors demi-god

    Spanky Deluxe

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Location:
    London, UK
    #5
    Hackers will still get around this somehow but it sure will make it harder for them. Besides which, how many 'power users' actually modify their kernel?? I mean seriously?
     
  6. macrumors 68000

    MrCrowbar

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    #6
    I though the Kernel was based on the opne FreeBSD...
     
  7. Moderator emeritus

    yellow

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #7
    No. It's Mach, from NeXTSTEP. At least the OS X version of Mach. The dude from CMU who developed it was hired by SJ to develop it for Apple.
     
  8. macrumors 6502a

    Starflyer

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2003
    #8
    Maybe this has to do with the rumor that they are dropping Mach support...just a thought
     
  9. macrumors 603

    Warbrain

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    #9
    I find no problem with this. Apple wants to control their OS, which is their property. They don't want OS X to be run on non-Apple PCs, and that's fine.
     
  10. macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    #10
    No it's not. It's basically part Mach, part FreeBSD and part something else.
     
  11. Moderator emeritus

    yellow

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #11
    Yes it is.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XNU

    They borrowed pieces/parts from the Mach for BSD, but for the most part it's all Mach from NeXTSTEP.
     
  12. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2004
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #12
    It is some botched up version of both Mach and FreeBSD. The only thing this shows is that apple (other than it is a hypocrite) is sure that they cannot sell macs just based on coolness factor. What is the "remaining" if the whole line transitions to intel anyway! :eek:
     
  13. Moderator emeritus

    yellow

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #13
    How is that any different than it was before?
     
  14. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2004
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #14
    They are free to do that! Like Microsoft ... the only thing that irritates me is how they act as if are all for the open source community and all that crap! They use a lot of opensource stuff ... it think it is basic courtesy to help them out... or create what ever you want and use it.
     
  15. Editor emeritus

    longofest

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    Location:
    Falls Church, VA
    #15
    Dude, you just linked to an article that proves you wrong. XNU is a hybrid kernel. It uses Mach for some stuff and BSD for others. You can't say that it is just Mach.
     
  16. Moderator emeritus

    yellow

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #16
    Dude.. Please read all the posts before posting. At no point did I write that it was "just Mach". Maybe that's how you interpreted it.

    To which I replied:

    Mach is MOST DEFINITELY NOT BASED ON BSD'S KERNEL.
    It's BASED on the kernel from NeXTSTEP, and borrows from the BSD kernel.
    There is a difference, as I view it.

    Reading is fundamental.
     
  17. macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #17
    After reading about this to took a look at the hacker who originally hacked 10.4.4's website and he still doesn't seem to have hacked 10.4.6 also a search on [a pirating site] came up fruitless for Mac OS X 10.4.6, I think the hackers are having problems hacking OS X for Intel at the moment. I'm sure when Leapard comes out it'll be hacked but it seems unlikely that you'll be getting too many free updates of the software, which makes a real Apple Mac superior to any hacked x86 generic Mac.
     
  18. arn
    macrumors god

    arn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2001
    #18
    Interesting opinion post on slashdot about this topic:

    http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=185992&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=15351035

     
  19. Editor emeritus

    longofest

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    Location:
    Falls Church, VA
    #19
    I was responding to this:

    "It's Mach", and then arguing with someone when they say that it is actually a hybrid design makes me believe that you thought it was ONLY Mach.

    The guy who was the principle hacker (who shall remain nameless and shall not be linked to on this forum) has basically fallen off of the face of the earth. a lot of people have wondered where he went...
     
  20. Moderator emeritus

    yellow

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #20
    I don't want to argue with you about how you interprted my posts.
     
  21. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2004
    #21
    Ppc

    Just another reason to stick with the PPC version of OSX. Also so much for the OSS community. Thanks Apple you just stated the obvious, money always comes first. :(

    Sorry for agreeing with another human being. Next time I will not show my support.
     
  22. Moderator emeritus

    yellow

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #22
  23. macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Location:
    Redondo Beach, California
    #23
    It is. BSD was ported by Next to use the Mach micro-kernel. Both Mach and BSD UNIX are open source. OSX uses both. However the license the BSD uses is not restrictive like GNU's GPL. A BSD style license allows any use whatsoever, even inclusion in comercial closed source software, just so long as the University of California gets credit and nt held liable for bugs. GPL required you to give away the source code in the same manner that you got it.

    All open source licenses are not alike. BSD allows you to re-sell the software without giving out the source. I for one would never contribute un-paid work to a BSD project because it allows someone else to profet by my contribution. GPL requires that if I give it away free and you have it then you must also give it away free, Apple has avioded the GPL licenses where it can.
     
  24. macrumors 604

    thejadedmonkey

    Joined:
    May 28, 2005
    Location:
    Pa
    #24
    Sure they can do what they want with it, but it just feels like...wrong, I couldn't explain it any better. It's like stealing candy from a baby. I'd never even bother hacking the kernel, or whatever it is that people do, but just knowing that I could if I needed to is nice to know.
     
  25. macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Location:
    Redondo Beach, California
    #25
    The above timeline is "off". Mach is developed at CMU (carnigie melon university) and BSD was relesed by the University of California at Berkly and based on work done by AT&T's Bell Labs. Both Mach and BSD pre-date Next. The people at Next rounded up what they though were great ideas of the time, UNIX, Mach, Object oriented C (I think it predates C++) and Display Postscript and built a computer around these existing ideas. Eventually this morphed into Mac OSX.

    As far as OS related code goes I don'tthink anyhting has moved out of Next/Apple and into other projects. The direction is the other way.
     

Share This Page